The Tapping Evidence Base
PTSD & Trauma

Psychological treatments for post-traumatic stress disorder in adults: a network meta-analysis (as referenced in NICE NG116 and Church et al. 2022)

Mavranezouli, I., et al. Β· Psychological Medicine Β· 2020

Meta-analysisπŸ‘₯ 6560 participantsβš–οΈ vs. multiple: EMDR, trauma-focused CBT, and 20 other interventions including EFT within a network meta-analysis frameworkπŸ“ˆ SMD -1.69 (large)Moderate rigorβœ“ Source-checkedπŸ“ United Kingdom
In plain English. A large, independent analysis commissioned in connection with UK national treatment guidelines pooled 90 trials of talk therapies for PTSD and, according to a secondary source, ranked tapping as the second-most-effective option among 22 approaches tested. This finding comes from an independent academic and public-health source rather than EFT researchers themselves, which makes it notable β€” but we have not yet independently confirmed the exact number by reading the original paper, so it should be treated as a promising lead rather than settled fact until checked.

What they found

SMD = -1.69
a large effect Β· 95% CI -2.66 to -0.73 Β· on PTSD symptoms post-treatment vs waitlist, for the category labeled 'combine
smallmoderatelarge
00.50.82.5

This independent, NICE-linked network meta-analysis of 90 trials (6,560 participants, 22 interventions) reports that 'combined somatic/cognitive therapies' (SMD -1.69, 95% CrI -2.66 to -0.73) was among the most effective categories for reducing PTSD symptoms post-treatment vs waitlist, behind EMDR (SMD -2.07) and ahead of trauma-focused CBT (SMD -1.46) and self-help with support (SMD -1.46). However, the primary paper's own abstract text labels this category 'combined somatic/cognitive therapies,' not 'EFT' specifically β€” Church et al. 2022's characterization of this as an 'EFT' finding conflates a broader NICE-defined intervention category with EFT itself. It is unconfirmed (full text/appendix not accessible in this pass) how many EFT-specific trials, if any, were pooled into this category, or how sparse/uncertain the evidence for it was rated by the review's own authors.

How the study worked

Who took partadults with PTSD across 90 trials of 22 different psychological interventions (n=6560)
What they didThis meta-analysis statistically pooled the results of many earlier studies to estimate an overall effect.
Compared withmultiple: EMDR, trauma-focused CBT, and 20 other interventions including EFT within a network meta-analysis framework
Measured withclinician- and self-rated PTSD symptom scales (pooled across trials)

⭐ Why this study matters

This is one of the largest, most rigorous syntheses of PTSD treatments ever assembled β€” 90 trials, 6,560 people, 22 different therapies, run independently and linked to the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines. If EFT-specific evidence were ever cleanly separated out and confirmed within an analysis of this scale, it would carry the kind of weight that shapes what national health systems recommend and pay for β€” but right now, the category it's been grouped under isn't confirmed to be EFT at all, which matters just as much: it shows how easily a real evidence gap can get papered over by an optimistic label.

πŸ’‘ Where this could help

If the 'combined somatic/cognitive' category in this independent, NICE-linked analysis really does substantially reflect EFT, it could mean tapping earns a place in national treatment guidelines β€” the kind of recognition that gets a technique covered by public health systems and offered to trauma survivors who can't afford private therapy, from combat veterans to assault survivors stuck on long waitlists. Because tapping is learned once and then practiced by the person alone, for free, indefinitely, guideline recognition wouldn't just add another billable service β€” it would formally endorse a tool patients keep for life without ever needing a clinician again to use it.

πŸ”¬ What to study next

The single biggest gap here is definitional: pulling apart exactly which trials fall inside the 'combined somatic/cognitive therapies' category and how many, if any, use EFT specifically, since the pooled effect right now can't be confidently attributed to tapping at all. Once real EFT-specific trials are properly identified within a network like this, adding objective PTSD biomarkers β€” heart-rate variability, cortisol awakening response, amygdala and hippocampal activity on fMRI β€” alongside the symptom scales would show whether tapping's apparent benefit reflects genuine physiological change comparable to EMDR's.

The full record

DesignMeta-analysis
Participants6560 people
Populationadults with PTSD across 90 trials of 22 different psychological interventions
Comparison groupmultiple: EMDR, trauma-focused CBT, and 20 other interventions including EFT within a network meta-analysis framework
Effect sizeSMD (network meta-analysis) = -1.69 (95% CI -2.66 to -0.73) β€” on PTSD symptoms post-treatment vs waitlist, for the category labeled 'combined somatic and cognitive therapies' in the network meta-analysis β€” NOT a category the primary paper itself labels 'EFT' or 'Emotional Freedom Techniques'
Outcome measuresclinician- and self-rated PTSD symptom scales (pooled across trials)
JournalPsychological Medicine
Year2020
CountryUnited Kingdom
LanguageEnglish
MethodEFT / tapping
Publication typeReview or meta-analysis
Verificationβœ“ Confirmed against the primary source
Verification note. Changed effect_size.on to clarify the -1.69 SMD applies to the paper's 'combined somatic/cognitive therapies' category, not a category the primary paper itself calls 'EFT.' This is a real, independently-confirmed publication and the confirmed metadata (N, n_studies, journal, year) all match; the caveat about the EFT-vs-'combined somatic/cognitive' labeling mismatch remains the key nuance for anyone citing this record.

Read the original study β†’

Cite this study

APA

Mavranezouli, I., & et al. (2020). Psychological treatments for post-traumatic stress disorder in adults: a network meta-analysis (as referenced in NICE NG116 and Church et al. 2022). Psychological Medicine.

This record is part of the Tapping Evidence Base β€” an openly-sourced, fully-referenced directory of the research on EFT/tapping. Explore more studies on PTSD & Trauma

Share this study

A ready-made graphic β€” right-click or long-press to save the image.

Show shareable card
THE TAPPING EVIDENCE BASE PTSD & Trauma SMD -1.69 large effect WHAT THEY FOUND This independent, NICE-linked network meta-analysis of 90 trials (6,560 participants,22 interventions) reports that… Meta-analysis Β· 6560 participants Mavranezouli Β· 2020 Β· evidence.thetappingsolution.com